For your consideration : a conspiracy theory

FluffyMcDeath

FluffyMcDeath

Active Member
Member
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
12,256
Reaction score
2,693
The 2008 crash was fueled by crazy credit products for house buying and a bubble in the real estate market but arguably the pin that popped the balloon was high fuel prices.

It's been established since then that much of the rise in the oil futures at that time was due to speculation. Rather than producers selling and consumers buying, the large financial companies had gotten into the act and were buying and selling contracts multiple times and driving up the price. This made the speculators very wealthy but drained money out of the people who depend on fuel to do real economic work (i.e. everybody). Now, what if those companies are still trading up the price and taking the margin. Oil is trading back up in the mid 70s. It had been trading in the mid 80s before Deepwater Horizon blew out and then it FELL to the high 60s before recovering somewhat.

Currently thousands of barrels are leaking directly out into the Gulf of Mexico. BP is actually flaring oil that they are capturing. Now imagine what would happen if they allowed efficient skimmers to work that water.

1) BP would be paying a lot of money to boat operators.
2) A lot of extra crude would be hitting the markets and the refiners. It may be degraded material but modern crackers can get a lot out of heavy oil.

Goldman Sachs and cronies may be holding a lot of futures that they don't want to see fall in value. Goldman and cronies paid a lot of money to Obama to get him in the Oval Office.

Just a thought.
 
Nobody liked the first one, that's a shame, I thought it was quite good. Oh well. I am undeterred. I have come up with another one. Try this on for size.

BP runs the coast guard. The coast guard has been running interference for BP and keeping reporters away from spill areas. BP and the coast guard have pretty good relations (and BP and quite a lot of the regulatory agencies seem to have good relations judging from recent news of graft and bribes).

BP and the coast guard are getting flack for failing to bring in more skimmers. Obama seems to think that the "Jones Act" excuse is a cannard and that waiver processing can be done quickly. The biggest stumbling block still seems to be BP who won't bring in these other vessels despite direct talks with skimmer owners and supposed assurances that the paperwork could get done quickly.

Why would BP not want the skimmers? Other than costs, of course. How about they are much happier hiring locals to do a crappy job than professionals with decent equipment to do a good job?

Well, if you hire all the locals then they have something to do while their livelihoods are destroyed. That keeps them off your back for a while. It's cheap too because you only have to PROMISE to pay them. Meanwhile the crude and corexit (TM) eat through their boat hulls further impoverishing the fishermen and hastening their eventual but impending destitution.

While getting the locals out in the oil to work, BP makes sure to prevent the workers from wearing respirators and using proper safety equipment. Already workers have had to retire from cleanup due to health problems related to toxicity from exposure to crude and corexit(TM).

Destitute people don't have the resources to fight for their rights and neither do sick people. It is cheaper to go to court for decades fighting these broken people for damages than it is to fork over proper compensation right now. It would break the company.

Why would they act so cynically?

And, according to something I saw on CNN today, of the people who worked the cleanup of Exxon Valdez 20 years ago, just about everyone is dead. Average life expectancy for those people? 51 years. The case for compensation dragged through the courts for two decades and money is yet to be paid out. Soon all the people that might have a claim will be dead but companies are not constrained by normal human life spans.

The sicker the claimants are the faster they die and that is good for the company. They will do this now because it is what they did the last time. Exxon was on the name of the boat, but the majority owner of the responsible consortium was BP.
 
That's about as plausible as this theory: God is punishing us for our sins.
 
Glaucus said:
That's about as plausible as this theory: God is punishing us for our sins.
Click to expand...
Intelligent agents looking out for their best interests and learning from experience is as likely as a mythical being?
 
i like all your theories

i have just been incredibly busy with work
 
Another theory ...
but, darn it, this isn't mine. This comes from a guy who has been trying to bring skimmers to the gulf for a month.

His feeling is that BP doesn't want the skimmers because of liability. BP is fined by the amount spilled and if you bring in skimmers you'll be able to quantify the spill. You will also notice that a lot of the oil isn't coming to the surface. Corexit hides the oil and "keeps it off the books" as it were.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Glaucus said:
That's about as plausible as this theory: God is punishing us for our sins.
Click to expand...
Intelligent agents looking out for their best interests and learning from experience is as likely as a mythical being?
Click to expand...

I'm just catching up with this thread and was wondering the same thing. :mrgreen:
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Another theory ...
but, darn it, this isn't mine. This comes from a guy who has been trying to bring skimmers to the gulf for a month.

His feeling is that BP doesn't want the skimmers because of liability. BP is fined by the amount spilled and if you bring in skimmers you'll be able to quantify the spill. You will also notice that a lot of the oil isn't coming to the surface. Corexit hides the oil and "keeps it off the books" as it were.
Click to expand...
now THAT theory is downright exciting!!! :banana:
 
More suspicion of liability avoidance.

The theory goes - if BP recovers all of the oil then we will know the flow rate and then we will be able to calculate what flowed versus what BP recovered and therefore we'd be able to calculate the correct fine under the clean water act. If, however, BP closes off the flow and can place a plug via the relief well then no-one will be able to prove what the original flow rate was. Much of what BP is doing is about minimizing fines rather than solving problems.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
More suspicion of liability avoidance.

The theory goes - if BP recovers all of the oil then we will know the flow rate and then we will be able to calculate what flowed versus what BP recovered and therefore we'd be able to calculate the correct fine under the clean water act. If, however, BP closes off the flow and can place a plug via the relief well then no-one will be able to prove what the original flow rate was. Much of what BP is doing is about minimizing fines rather than solving problems.
Click to expand...
Honestly, that's even less plausible then the theory I mentioned in my first post. Accusing BP of conspiring to cap the well for the SOUL purpose of avoiding fines is pretty stupid. It's like saying you'd rather let the well flow freely so that we can fine them the full amount. Let's just stick to the unquestionable bad things BP has done as all these conspiracy theories make BP look like the victim of a witch hunt - and I have no interest in helping BP look like a victim.

EDIT: And just reading some of the user comments, most seem to think that article is a huge pile of poop.
 
Glaucus said:
Honestly, that's even less plausible then the theory I mentioned in my first post. Accusing BP of conspiring to cap the well for the SOUL purpose of avoiding fines is pretty stupid.
Click to expand...

They've made a lot of decisions down the line that have been reckless and deceptive. Companies make calculations differently from the way that you and I might. They do not have moral qualms, nor, if they are sufficiently large, are they necessarily subject the same way that a person is to the law. Cover-up is a valid business practice and information and perception management are always in the contingency. Anyone with a good reason to lie probably is lying. If you start from the position of trust then you will get owned. If you always assume duplicity then you will merely find out that not everything is a lie. Don't trust anyone who hasn't earned it. On the other hand, always distrust serial criminals. BP has a history.
 
Distrust BP? Sure. But the idea that they are automatically guilty just because they have opportunity to be guilty doesn't really fly with me. And being guilty of one crime doesn't mean you're capable of other types of crimes. Rapists generally don't murder their victims even though it could make it much harder to get caught.

Look, if you had real evidence of something sinister I'm all ears, but you're presenting little more then wild speculation here. Find a leaked memo from a BP engineer to support any of this and I'll fully agree with you. But as it is, there's really nothing to any of this.

And the reason I compared these theories to religion is because in both cases belief precedes evidence. That's just not right.
 
Glaucus said:
Look, if you had real evidence of something sinister I'm all ears, but you're presenting little more then wild speculation here.
Click to expand...

You cannot prosecute on suspicion, rightfully, but you can act on suspicion. Suspicion leads you to look and not looking is the best way to not find anything. We already have leakage of pre-spill emails exposing a certain amount of cavalier expedience. I wouldn't expect as much written down now. BP is in crisis. Internal communications would be much more informal and restricted under such circumstances. Organizations close up under crisis (until they fall apart at which time it gets messy with finger pointing). We all hang together or we will surely hang separately.

Confirmation bias is a real phenomenon but so are conspiracies and cover-ups whereas gods are not. People are social creatures and are adept at perpetrating deceptions and at detecting deceptions. Spouses who suspect that their spouse is cheating on them are correct in their suspicions more often than they are wrong.

Putting one over on your fellow man is considered impolite and unsporting socially but is a pretty standard practice in business.
 
Well, sure, people and nations and companies conspire. But would a company that has been thrust under the media's and government's microscope attempt such scams? I can expect an attempt at a cover up for mistakes leading up to the catastrophe, but not sure anyone at the helm of BP would have the balls to go off the deep end (excuse the pun) and commit a bunch more crimes while everyone is looking.

But like you said, organizations do fall apart and it does get messy. For BP to pull some of this stuff off, a lot of people would have some idea of what's going on on the inside. Not sure the top dogs would really want to risk having more fingers pointed at them. They must know better then anyone that BP is an easy target these days. Just about any diabolical scheme attribute to BP these days could easily find a sympathetic ear, especially in the Louisiana area.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
... and while I'm yammering on about the skulduggery at BP - how was BP involved in the Libya/UK deal over the Lockerbie bomber.

Was it done partly to help expedite drilling in Libya?
Click to expand...

What a silly charade.

The faux outrage coming from the US about this is as manufactured as it is absurd.

We were discussing this on here over a year ago and we're supposed to believe it's all just coming to light now.

Inquiry?
Bring it on.
But let's have a full inquiry then maybe we'll get to find out who really blew up that Pan-Am jet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top